Why is there almost no talk of Sanders trajectory, and trends?

VivaRevolution

Banned
Banned
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
34,002
Reaction score
0
Question, why is there almost no talk of Bernie Sanders trajectory in polling, and trends?

Sanders has went from 2% nationally to 43%, he closed a 50% gap in Iowa, and 55% gap in New Hampshire, he is now tied in Nevada, and has closed the gap to 19% in South Carolina.

He has massive leads with young voters, Independents, likeability, and trustworthiness.

The trajectory, and trends of polling are strongly in favor of Sanders.

What is the argument against these trends continuing, and Sanders running away with the nomination?
 
Expectations were that he could perform well in NH and Iowa but the South would be a huge problem for him. His numbers with blacks are still terrible and he hasn't be able to turn that around yet despite some endorsements and pushing hard for narrowing it.
 
Expectations were that he could perform well in NH and Iowa but the South would be a huge problem for him. His numbers with blacks are still terrible and he hasn't be able to turn that around yet despite some endorsements and pushing hard for narrowing it.

Actually that is a talking point. Sanders originally had no better name recognition in New Hampshire than he did anywhere else(Minus Vermont).

See. this is what I am talking about. I hear a lot of talk about black support, and super delegates, and almost no talk about Clinton's untrustworthy numbers.

Sanders can win the nomination without moving the black support numbers. Clinton can not win this nomination without doing something about those trustworthy numbers.

Yet, which narrative dominates the discussion?
 
I would think Sanders showing in iowa to be a feather in his cap. Very relegious place and Bernie is a jew.
 
The "better" story is the Hillary aspect, not of the rise of Bernie. if that makes sense. The story is more about Hillary losing the lead instead of Bernie making up the lead. Like Trump, Hillary gets you ratings. Bernie doesn't. Bernies fans are not watching news programs, they are too busy being oppressed.
 
Actually that is a talking point. Sanders originally had no better name recognition in New Hampshire than he did anywhere else(Minus Vermont).

See. this is what I am talking about. I hear a lot of talk about black support, and super delegates, and almost no talk about Clinton's untrustworthy numbers.

Sanders can win the nomination without moving the black support numbers. Clinton can not win this nomination without doing something about those trustworthy numbers.

Yet, which narrative dominates the discussion?

Talking point or not, you can look back in the Dem Primary Thread and see people thought NH and Iowa were states Bernie could win. He didn't surprise people with that. Possibly a little with Iowa but not to a large margin. You could say everything you are saying is a talking point. That's a weird deflection.

You hear a lot of talk about black support because if he maintains numbers like 74-19 Hillary with blacks like he is in SC, he isn;t; going anywhere.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2016/primary/dem/scdem.html
 
The "better" story is the Hillary aspect, not of the rise of Bernie. if that makes sense. The story is more about Hillary losing the lead instead of Bernie making up the lead. Like Trump, Hillary gets you ratings. Bernie doesn't. Bernies fans are not watching news programs, they are too busy being oppressed.

This. Biden already said he regrets not running. Any person who ran against Hillary was going to see a tightening of the race because a significant portion of Democrats do not want her to win. Once Biden said no, the support pushed further onto Bernie. Problem is, Bernie isn't going to be see as a credible GE choice like a Biden or others would.
 
Talking point or not, you can look back in the Dem Primary Thread and see people thought NH and Iowa were states Bernie could win. He didn't surprise people with that. Possibly a little with Iowa but not to a large margin. You could say everything you are saying is a talking point. That's a weird deflection.

You hear a lot of talk about black support because if he maintains numbers like 74-19 Hillary with blacks like he is in SC, he isn;t; going anywhere.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2016/primary/dem/scdem.html


I'm sorry, let me be more clear. The claim that Sanders had some kind of home field advantage in New Hampshire is not backed up by Bernie's name recognition in that state.

There for, making the claim that Sanders surge in New Hampshire was based on this, is a zombie lie.
 
I'm sorry, let me be more clear. The claim that Sanders had some kind of home field advantage in New Hampshire is not backed up by Bernie's name recognition in that state.

There for, making the claim that Sanders surge in New Hampshire was based on this, is a zombie lie.

That wasn't the claim I made. I said he was seen as being able to do well in Iowa and NH before it happened. The reason most said this was possible is because they a proportionally white compared to the rest of the states coming up.
 
That wasn't the claim I made. I said he was seen as being able to do well in Iowa and NH before it happened. The reason most said this was possible is because they a proportionally white compared to the rest of the states coming up.

By what time stamp?

I agree that Sanders was expected to do well by December, but back in July, Bernie was treated as a punch line.
 
By what time stamp?

I agree that Sanders was expected to do well by December, but back in July, Bernie was treated as a punch line.

Okay? No one is arguing he became the alternative in a two person race for the party? I think your problem is largely you saw the surge when supporters backed him against Hillary and you are now suggesting that "trajectory" or "trend" somehow means he will continue to surge until he is in the 60's and then 70's and then 80's and how foolish could we be to not accept a spike won't ever end?

I already told you he has been chosen as the alternative to Hillary since Biden decided to not run. The problem is he isn't closing the black vote so that surge you are talking about is non-existent to the point I made. Unless he has a surge with black voters, his campaign won't win.
 
The shape shifting Zio elite Reptilian bankers are against Bernie. And just like Ron Paul they will steal the election from him.

Is that right?
 
Okay? No one is arguing he became the alternative in a two person race for the party? I think your problem is largely you saw the surge when supporters backed him against Hillary and you are now suggesting that "trajectory" or "trend" somehow means he will continue to surge until he is in the 60's and then 70's and then 80's and how foolish could we be to not accept a spike won't ever end?

I already told you he has been chosen as the alternative to Hillary since Biden decided to not run. The problem is he isn't closing the black vote so that surge you are talking about is non-existent to the point I made. Unless he has a surge with black voters, his campaign won't win.

How does he not win without the black vote?

Maybe I am mistaken, but black people make up 15% of this country last I checked.

What % of voters are 18-29 year old's, Independents, and people who vote based on trustworthiness?

I do not understand how one voting block that makes up 15% of the voting population makes Clinton the front runner, or even favored at this point, when Bernie has 3 categories that he dominates the same way.

I mean for South Carolina where the state is over 50% black........sure, but South Carolina is not this countries demographics.
 
How does he not win without the black vote?

Maybe I am mistaken, but black people make up 15% of this country last I checked.

What % of voters are 18-29 year old's, Independents, and people who vote based on trustworthiness?

I do not understand how one voting block that makes up 15% of the voting population makes Clinton the front runner, or even favored at this point, when Bernie has 3 categories that he dominates the same way.

I mean for South Carolina where the state is over 50% black........sure, but South Carolina is not this countries demographics.
The majority of white southern voters are voting Republican, so blacks make up a greater percentage of Democrats in those states. Hence their importance in the primary. They are less important for the general election because the swing states are decided by working class whites.
 
The majority of white southern voters are voting Republican, so blacks make up a greater percentage of Democrats in those states. Hence their importance in the primary. They are less important for the general election because the swing states are decided by working class whites.

See this is the argument that somehow the South picks the D nomination. I could not disagree more. I believe the coasts pick the D nomination.

I have never heard this theory before about the south picking the D nomination, until this election.
 
How does he not win without the black vote?

Maybe I am mistaken, but black people make up 15% of this country last I checked.

What % of voters are 18-29 year old's, Independents, and people who vote based on trustworthiness?

I do not understand how one voting block that makes up 15% of the voting population makes Clinton the front runner, or even favored at this point, when Bernie has 3 categories that he dominates the same way.

I mean for South Carolina where the state is over 50% black........sure, but South Carolina is not this countries demographics.

The Democratic primary obviously isn;t the same as national demographics. 15% isn't representative of what some turnout you could see but lets still show an example.

White Population 850
Black Population 150

Clinton polls say 80-20 with blacks
Bernie polls say 54-46 with whites

Results
Clinton 120+391= 511
Bernie 30+459= 489

He lost with your 15%.

Also, the white 54-46 isn't the case with most states we've seen in January. A bunch of upcoming states have both the white and black vote going to Hillary.
 
See this is the argument that somehow the South picks the D nomination. I could not disagree more. I believe the coasts pick the D nomination.

I have never heard this theory before about the south picking the D nomination, until this election.

No one is saying it's just the South (meaning Super Tuesday). You then get Florida and New York later on. You think NY isn't going to Clinton? Florida has 16% black population as well so above the average mentioned. California has almost a majority of Hispanics which also do better for Hillary.
 
The Democratic primary obviously isn;t the same as national demographics. 15% isn't representative of what some turnout you could see but lets still show an example.

White Population 850
Black Population 150

Clinton polls say 80-20 with blacks
Bernie polls say 54-46 with whites

Results
Clinton 120+391= 511
Bernie 30+459= 489

He lost with your 15%.

Also, the white 54-46 isn't the case with most states we've seen in January. A bunch of upcoming states have both the white and black vote going to Hillary.

Come on man! What % of voters voted in Iowa for trustworthy being the number 1 issue?

Because she lost 92-6.

Young voters 18-29, and independents over 75% for Bernie.

Are you really arguing that people who vote for trustworthiness, 18-29 year old's, and Independents,(3 categories combined) are not at minimum equal to the number of black voters?
 
Back
Top